On June 06 2013 22:30 opterown wrote: I think ByuN should have advanced, he was unlucky in his three losses but he beat effort, who advanced. how is this fair
Don't feed him pls :D
Implying I'm a troll because I think tiebreakers should be played when players are tied. Yea, you really insulted me bro.
How is it fair to the guy who already won head to head?? If both of them have the same score and he beat him 1v1 once already, there is no point in playing another match between both of them since he already beat him o.o
A head to head victory is only 1 piece of information that indicates 1 player is stronger than the other. At the same time Paralyze was able to overcome an opponent (Curious, who came first) which Effort was unable to. This information would indicate Paralyze is stronger, if looked at in isolation. Looking at the overall win/loss record takes into account multiple results and gives a good measure of overall performance. Looking at head to head to determine the result seems like arbitrary data cherry picking.
While I don’t think head to head is ideal, I accept it, as I see it exists not to be fair, but to be a practical solution to a time restriction.
Let's say that three players are tied in mapscore. Only one of these players can advance. How do you determine who advances? You have tiebreakers where one of those players must beat the other two. In last night's case, Effort had already beat the other two players.
On June 06 2013 12:04 lichter wrote: If 2 esf dudes make it out, it'll be 16 esf 16 kespa, which I find surprising. Didn't expect it to be that close
There were 13 Kespa players last season. Only 7 the season before. And 2 before that.
Next season, it will be between 16 and 18.
Some of the Code S players are guaranteed to be back the following season. This makes player replacement a gradual process.
On June 06 2013 12:58 Caihead wrote:
On June 06 2013 12:49 Dodgin wrote:
On June 06 2013 12:44 YourHarry wrote:
On June 06 2013 12:04 lichter wrote: If 2 esf dudes make it out, it'll be 16 esf 16 kespa, which I find surprising. Didn't expect it to be that close
There were 13 Kespa players last season. Only 7 the season before. And 2 before that.
Next season, it will be between 16 and 18.
Some of the Code S players are guaranteed to be back the following season. This makes player replacement a gradual process.
I think you skipped a season somewhere in there
2012 Season 3 had 0 kespa, 4 had Rain and Jaedong. 5 had Rain Bbyong RorO sOs Bogus Baby Soulkey. 2013 Season 1 had Baby RorO Bogus Soukey. WCS Season 1 had Bogus RorO sOs Flash True Flying Fantasy Crazy soO Rain and Last WCS Season 2 going to have Bogus sOs Soulkey RorO Bbyong Flying Flash Hyvaa Rain soO Trap Shine Fantasy Savage Jangbi and who ever makes it out today.
Unless you guys mean to count Challenger League / Code A too.
Parting doesn't count -_- So what MajOr is also Kespa? Idra is also Kespa because he was on CJ? You don't become kespa signing on and off, it's the entire training regiment from start to end. Unless everyone who's ever been in Kespa teams counts, in which case we should be counting MVP, Nestea, Forgg, etc etc etc. Counting challenger league is iffy.
Yes Parting and Major are Kespa. No, MVP Nestea ForGG are not.
How is this even debatable?
Oh "training". HuK is Korean right?
So EG-TL is Kespa now because of coach park right? Kespa just won WCS AM, good to know.
EG-TL aren't part of the Kespa organisation, so no.
???
But their coach which is what matters for a team is a legendary kespa coach. They are taking part in the Kespa team league instead of the ESF teamleague. HerO plays with kespa players more than ESF players. So ????
The whole argument is retarded. The only way to actually distinguish Kespa and ESF is if they only benefited from one majority party for their career. People who hop around and then get instantly referred to an organization when it's ambiguous whether they benefited from that organization is discrediting that person's hard work. Someone like Bogus or Flash is unambiguously Kespa. If you actually want to make a comparison between the training regiment, team environment or organizational environment or who influences their decision making you have to go to that basis and not look at in between. It's as silly as calling Yugioh a foreign player a week after he gets picked up and hasn't even left Korea yet.
On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote: Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers?
Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time
Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else.
That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes.
head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol
Explain how it's fair.
How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two.
Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair.
On June 06 2013 23:50 Aphid wrote: A head to head victory is only 1 piece of information that indicates 1 player is stronger than the other. At the same time Paralyze was able to overcome an opponent (Curious, who came first) which Effort was unable to. This information would indicate Paralyze is stronger, if looked at in isolation.
I know you're using fake logic to prove your point, but the fake logic you're using doesn't actually work. If Effort beats Byun and goes 3-1 instead of 2-2, there's no tiebreaker, but Paralyze has still beaten Curious. This information is relevant in the match-up between Curious and Paralyze, but that match-up doesn't (and shouldn't) matter here.
A group's results are a combination of several good and bad results. You can't just look at one of the good results and tell "hey, this doesn't work, someone has one good result and yet he doesn't get through.", because on one side there's the good things he made and on the other there's the bad things he made, and they equalize.
The point I was trying to make here as that looking at individual match-up results in isolation isn't ideal and is cherry picking. But we should however look at the overall win/loss of the night and not give additional emphasis on a randomly selected result (ie head to head or who beat the stronger player). Based on this I see Paralyze, Effort and Super are tied at the end of the night. I wasn't trying to say that Paralyze should have been selected over effort because of his win over Curious.
"You can't just look at one of the good results and tell "hey, this doesn't work, someone has one good result and yet he doesn't get through."". I totally agree, that was the idea I was trying to convey. I see looking at head to head as an example of looking at one particular result and not considering the bigger picture.
On June 06 2013 22:30 opterown wrote: I think ByuN should have advanced, he was unlucky in his three losses but he beat effort, who advanced. how is this fair
Don't feed him pls :D
Implying I'm a troll because I think tiebreakers should be played when players are tied. Yea, you really insulted me bro.
How is it fair to the guy who already won head to head?? If both of them have the same score and he beat him 1v1 once already, there is no point in playing another match between both of them since he already beat him o.o
A head to head victory is only 1 piece of information that indicates 1 player is stronger than the other. At the same time Paralyze was able to overcome an opponent (Curious, who came first) which Effort was unable to. This information would indicate Paralyze is stronger, if looked at in isolation. Looking at the overall win/loss record takes into account multiple results and gives a good measure of overall performance. Looking at head to head to determine the result seems like arbitrary data cherry picking.
While I don’t think head to head is ideal, I accept it, as I see it exists not to be fair, but to be a practical solution to a time restriction.
Let's say that three players are tied in mapscore. Only one of these players can advance. How do you determine who advances? You have tiebreakers where one of those players must beat the other two. In last night's case, Effort had already beat the other two players.
I see this as both fair and practical.
In that case, Effort's head to head win is already counted for, it changed his position from being behind to being tied. To then upgrade his position from tied to ahead of those with the same mapscore would be to double count the value of the head to head win. Basically what I'm trying to get across is that a head to head win should be worth as much as any other win in the big scheme of things, in my opinion.
On June 06 2013 23:50 Aphid wrote: A head to head victory is only 1 piece of information that indicates 1 player is stronger than the other. At the same time Paralyze was able to overcome an opponent (Curious, who came first) which Effort was unable to. This information would indicate Paralyze is stronger, if looked at in isolation.
I know you're using fake logic to prove your point, but the fake logic you're using doesn't actually work. If Effort beats Byun and goes 3-1 instead of 2-2, there's no tiebreaker, but Paralyze has still beaten Curious. This information is relevant in the match-up between Curious and Paralyze, but that match-up doesn't (and shouldn't) matter here.
A group's results are a combination of several good and bad results. You can't just look at one of the good results and tell "hey, this doesn't work, someone has one good result and yet he doesn't get through.", because on one side there's the good things he made and on the other there's the bad things he made, and they equalize.
The point I was trying to make here as that looking at individual match-up results in isolation isn't ideal and is cherry picking. But we should however look at the overall win/loss of the night and not give additional emphasis on a randomly selected result (ie head to head or who beat the stronger player). Based on this I see Paralyze, Effort and Super are tied and the end of the night. I wasn't trying to say that Paralyze should have been selected over effort because of his win over Curious.
"You can't just look at one of the good results and tell "hey, this doesn't work, someone has one good result and yet he doesn't get through."". I totally agree, that was the idea I was trying to convey. I see looking at head to head as an example of looking at one particular result and not considering the bigger picture.
On June 06 2013 22:30 opterown wrote: I think ByuN should have advanced, he was unlucky in his three losses but he beat effort, who advanced. how is this fair
Don't feed him pls :D
Implying I'm a troll because I think tiebreakers should be played when players are tied. Yea, you really insulted me bro.
How is it fair to the guy who already won head to head?? If both of them have the same score and he beat him 1v1 once already, there is no point in playing another match between both of them since he already beat him o.o
A head to head victory is only 1 piece of information that indicates 1 player is stronger than the other. At the same time Paralyze was able to overcome an opponent (Curious, who came first) which Effort was unable to. This information would indicate Paralyze is stronger, if looked at in isolation. Looking at the overall win/loss record takes into account multiple results and gives a good measure of overall performance. Looking at head to head to determine the result seems like arbitrary data cherry picking.
While I don’t think head to head is ideal, I accept it, as I see it exists not to be fair, but to be a practical solution to a time restriction.
Let's say that three players are tied in mapscore. Only one of these players can advance. How do you determine who advances? You have tiebreakers where one of those players must beat the other two. In last night's case, Effort had already beat the other two players.
I see this as both fair and practical.
In that case, Effort's head to head win is already counted for, it changed his position from being behind to being tied. To then upgrade his position from tied to ahead of those with the same mapscore would to be double count the value of the head to head win. Basically what I'm trying to get across is that a head to head win should be worth as much as any other win in the big scheme of things, in my opinion.
This is correct. There is no logical reason head to head should count for more than a win against other players. Why should Super's and Paralyze's wins against the opponents that Effort did not beat count for less? That is a totally arbitrary reason to determine who advances. I know its used in other competitions as well but that doesn't make it any more valid. They only do that to save time. Yes its a rule that everyone has agreed to, that's why there is no controversy. But from a fairness point of view, it doesn't make sense.
Sad to see Afrotoss not advance, especially after going 2-0 to start off. I much prefer effort advancing though between those two. With that said, why did effort go one of the worst styles ive seen pro korean zergs do in an important patch vs Byun? More importantly still, why do zergs go that style AT ALL? I can't remember a game it won to be honest. We knew from wings that roaches are bad against bio with stim and upgrades and hydras barely change that equation at all...Byun was a mess in this group and any even reasonably good style would have crushed him but effort picked a steaming pill of crap as a style.
On June 06 2013 12:04 lichter wrote: If 2 esf dudes make it out, it'll be 16 esf 16 kespa, which I find surprising. Didn't expect it to be that close
There were 13 Kespa players last season. Only 7 the season before. And 2 before that.
Next season, it will be between 16 and 18.
Some of the Code S players are guaranteed to be back the following season. This makes player replacement a gradual process.
On June 06 2013 12:58 Caihead wrote:
On June 06 2013 12:49 Dodgin wrote:
On June 06 2013 12:44 YourHarry wrote: [quote]
There were 13 Kespa players last season. Only 7 the season before. And 2 before that.
Next season, it will be between 16 and 18.
Some of the Code S players are guaranteed to be back the following season. This makes player replacement a gradual process.
I think you skipped a season somewhere in there
2012 Season 3 had 0 kespa, 4 had Rain and Jaedong. 5 had Rain Bbyong RorO sOs Bogus Baby Soulkey. 2013 Season 1 had Baby RorO Bogus Soukey. WCS Season 1 had Bogus RorO sOs Flash True Flying Fantasy Crazy soO Rain and Last WCS Season 2 going to have Bogus sOs Soulkey RorO Bbyong Flying Flash Hyvaa Rain soO Trap Shine Fantasy Savage Jangbi and who ever makes it out today.
Unless you guys mean to count Challenger League / Code A too.
Parting doesn't count -_- So what MajOr is also Kespa? Idra is also Kespa because he was on CJ? You don't become kespa signing on and off, it's the entire training regiment from start to end. Unless everyone who's ever been in Kespa teams counts, in which case we should be counting MVP, Nestea, Forgg, etc etc etc. Counting challenger league is iffy.
Yes Parting and Major are Kespa. No, MVP Nestea ForGG are not.
How is this even debatable?
Oh "training". HuK is Korean right?
So EG-TL is Kespa now because of coach park right? Kespa just won WCS AM, good to know.
EG-TL aren't part of the Kespa organisation, so no.
???
But their coach which is what matters for a team is a legendary kespa coach. They are taking part in the Kespa team league instead of the ESF teamleague. HerO plays with kespa players more than ESF players. So ????
The whole argument is retarded. The only way to actually distinguish Kespa and ESF is if they only benefited from one majority party for their career. People who hop around and then get instantly referred to an organization when it's ambiguous whether they benefited from that organization is discrediting that person's hard work. Someone like Bogus or Flash is unambiguously Kespa. If you actually want to make a comparison between the training regiment, team environment or organizational environment or who influences their decision making you have to go to that basis and not look at in between. It's as silly as calling Yugioh a foreign player a week after he gets picked up and hasn't even left Korea yet.
this is very true, good job and well phrased
How in this world? Jesus. So. Cristiano Ronaldo isnt a spanish league player ? He is a premier league player? Mark gasol isnt a NBA player? Lewis Hamilton isnt a Mercedes driver? Jesus.
On June 07 2013 02:54 Aphid wrote: "You can't just look at one of the good results and tell "hey, this doesn't work, someone has one good result and yet he doesn't get through."". I totally agree, that was the idea I was trying to convey. I see looking at head to head as an example of looking at one particular result and not considering the bigger picture.
The difference is that the match-ups between Super, Paralyze and Effort actually hold weight in the equation, because they are the people who are tied in points. We are trying to decide which of Super, Paralyze and Effort "deserves" (obv not trying to say the others have no merit, you know what I mean) the most to get through, and the only way to do it is to focus on their match-ups. That's exactly what a tiebreaker is, a focus on their match-ups. Which brings me to, no, I wouldn't agree that looking at effort vs Paralyze (tied players) has the same level of relevance as looking at Curious vs Paralyze (non-tied players). Even more, I'd say that presenting the two match-ups as equal is an excellent example of not seeing the bigger picture.
On June 07 2013 05:24 Maghetti wrote: Sad to see Afrotoss not advance, especially after going 2-0 to start off. I much prefer effort advancing though between those two. With that said, why did effort go one of the worst styles ive seen pro korean zergs do in an important patch vs Byun? More importantly still, why do zergs go that style AT ALL? I can't remember a game it won to be honest. We knew from wings that roaches are bad against bio with stim and upgrades and hydras barely change that equation at all...Byun was a mess in this group and any even reasonably good style would have crushed him but effort picked a steaming pill of crap as a style.
I don't understand it either, at least against Bio. Even though Bel'shir is the best map to use it on, even though Effort played better overall, once Byun survived the first few waves I knew he was going to win.
It is really straightforward, it does have a window of time in which it's very powerful, and it's an easy transition out of defending hellions/hellbat drops.
But you're very vulnerable to drops, it hurts your ultralisk transition, and even in power the terran quickly catches up and will overpower you once he has the tank and medivac numbers.
On June 06 2013 23:50 Aphid wrote: A head to head victory is only 1 piece of information that indicates 1 player is stronger than the other. At the same time Paralyze was able to overcome an opponent (Curious, who came first) which Effort was unable to. This information would indicate Paralyze is stronger, if looked at in isolation.
I know you're using fake logic to prove your point, but the fake logic you're using doesn't actually work. If Effort beats Byun and goes 3-1 instead of 2-2, there's no tiebreaker, but Paralyze has still beaten Curious. This information is relevant in the match-up between Curious and Paralyze, but that match-up doesn't (and shouldn't) matter here.
A group's results are a combination of several good and bad results. You can't just look at one of the good results and tell "hey, this doesn't work, someone has one good result and yet he doesn't get through.", because on one side there's the good things he made and on the other there's the bad things he made, and they equalize.
There's nothing fake about Aphid's logic, it's just your grasp of logic that's shaky. All information is relevant, picking any single game as being more important than the others, without the player's foreknowledge, is unfair. They are tied and you're still using a very arbitrary way of advancing one despite doing just as well in the group.
On June 07 2013 02:54 Aphid wrote: "You can't just look at one of the good results and tell "hey, this doesn't work, someone has one good result and yet he doesn't get through."". I totally agree, that was the idea I was trying to convey. I see looking at head to head as an example of looking at one particular result and not considering the bigger picture.
Even more, I'd say that presenting the two match-ups as equal is an excellent example of not seeing the bigger picture.
They are equal, a W:L of bo1's vs players in the group. Just because you happen to tie with the person who beat you shouldn't mean you had to beat 2 players the guy lost to.
A slightly fairer method would be legacy tiebreakers. Where players dropping from Code S advance over those rising from Code A. H2H only gives the illusion of fairness and saves time on extra games.
EPT
